Seattle Schools Community Forum

Or, as more commonly referred to, the SAP. Background The district created a new Student Assignment Plan in 2009 that was approved by the Board.  It was a big change, primarily because the district went from a choice plan to a neighborhood plan.  I know that many of you don't like this form of SAP but, at the time, many parents were clamoring for a neighborhood plan because of the assurance of knowing what school their child would be assigned to.  The interesting thing I wonder about is that under the choice plan, 90% of people received their first choice.  That's a pretty good percentage but was that their desired choice or just the best choice they felt they could make in terms of knowing where their child would be?  I haven't heard any numbers on the choice within the neighborhood plan. Then, with the explosive growth in the district, the plan had to be tweeted and so there was a Transition Plan.  What is confusing to me is that the district is stil...

I still have to do my write-up about my talk with Wyeth Jessee about his new role as head of Student Supports, overseeing AL, Special Education, ELL, counseling, nurses, etc.  One thing I will say now is that I asked him about changes in AL and he said he had just gotten the job (absolutely true) but it wouldn't happen without stakeholder input.  I reminded him that Spectrum disappeared like sugar dissolving in iced tea but he smiled and shrugged.  But now a reader has alerted us that the AL department wants our input.   Comments on the proposed DRAFT can be sent to advlearn@seattleschools.org with the subject line 2190SP. The proposed DRAFT will be reviewed by the Curriculum and Instruction Policy Committee at their meeting on Monday, August 15, 2017. Please send your comments in before July 31 to assure it will be reviewed prior to the meeting. There are a number of documents to read. 

It's been a while, but I've been feeling an Advanced Learning rant building in me. It got pushed over the edge today when I got thinking about the District's inability to implement MTSS. For those who prefer to skip rants - and especially rants on this topic - please do skip it.

I have said, over and over again, that having an ALO in a school is usually no different from not having an ALO in a school. Schools typically don't define their ALO in any meaningful way. They cannot and do not describe the ALO for families or tell families what the ALO provides that is any different from the norm for good teaching practices. There are typically no practices specific to school ALOs. Schools cannot identify anything they do differently for students in ALOs than they do for students who are not in ALOs. Often the school cannot even say which students are participating in the ALO. There is no assessment of school ALOs. The District has never made any assessment of their quality or efficacy (or even their existence) and the schools make no assessment of their quality or efficacy. The bulk of ALOs are a fiction. They exist exclusively in marketing materials. I recognize that this is a pretty harsh characterization of ALOs and, let's face it, Spectrum sinc...

SPS put out a press release about Advanced Learning and testing.  The Board is due to vote on acceptance of the latest AL plan to OSPI at the Board meeting tomorrow night (and it's not even being discussed - it's on the Consent Agenda). After you read this thread, my recommendation if you are an AL parent or prospective parent, is to send an e-mail to your own director (or all of them or really just Director Peters who seems to listen on a regular basis) and ask that this item be REMOVED from the Consent Agenda.  That will put it on the path to being actively discussed. Write to: SPSdirectors@seattleschools.org Reader Lynn has been reading and asking questions and it seems that Advanced Learning will be changing policy almost at will (and without much notification to parents).  From AL: Now that we have formal Superintendent Procedures it will be necessary to update them periodically as do most other programs and services. The current 2190SP was presented to C...

Two items have come up that only solidify my belief that the district has a very odd relationship with principals.  I say odd because there is no real way of knowing what the district will tighten the screws on and what they will completely look the other way on. One key issue is WHY principals make some of the decisions that they do and where they get the stated support for some decisions.   Principals say "their community" wants something and yet sometimes the PTA doesn't even know what is happening.  I have found that principals are people with their own philosophies and beliefs about education.  The problem is that a school can have a district program in them as well as a stated focus for the school.  I find it vexing that a new principal can come in and almost sweep all that away.   You can have parents, on the ground at their schools, telling Ex. Directors and others, "this is happening at my school" and the district will ignore it or shrug. I...

There was a reader comment about wanting to opt an APP student out of MAP testing but the parent seemed to think that the child would lose eligibility if he/she did not take the MAP.  Here's what I learned from speaking with Stephen Martin, head of the Advanced Learning department. The MAP is the gatekeeper to finding out if your child is eligible for AL testing. However, once you are enrolled, your child does not lose eligibility in AL programs if he/she does not take MAP.  What is a problem is maintaining your eligibility if you qualify but then do not access a program.  (Let me say that, on the surface, I think this policy is good because I used to hear many parents say they were just testing their children "to see how they do" with zero intention of enrolling them in an AL program.  That's just a waste of time and money for the district and it should not be happening.) BUT, the issue is does your child have access to an AL program even if he/she qualif...

Some updates: - according to the AL webpage, as of yesterday, 1,637 eligibility letters were sent (out of a possible 4024).  So if you were looking for one, it may be in the mail.  They started mailing them out on Jan. 31st.  Scores and eligibility decisions are NOT available by phone or e-mail.  - testing is continuing thru early Feb. - all eligibility decisions, including appeals , will be done before Open Enrollment ends on March 7th - E-mails sent to the Advanced Learning e-mail (advlearn@seattleschools.org) are answered in the order they are received.  Responses to e-mails will be faster than phone calls. - the next scheduled meeting of the Advanced Learning Task Force was postponed to Feb. 13th at 9:30am in Room 2776 at JSCEE.   The last meeting they had was December 17th so nearly two months have gone by.  You can see the lack of urgency for the district in this.  The minutes from that last meeting are not available. - I note ...

The current advanced learning task force has been charged with reviewing the systems and processes for qualifying students for Highly Capable services and Advanced Learning programs in Seattle Public Schools. The committee is supposed to work toward a shared approach for determining which students qualify for Highly Capable services and Advanced Learning programs that best benefits students. Although it is not stated anywhere in the charge to the task force, the members have been told that their goal is to increase representation in advanced learning programs by under-represented groups. It's unclear why this goal is not overtly stated in the charge document. We should discuss it as well.

From the Friday Memo to the Board of October 4 : Advanced Learning Task Force Advanced Learning has contracted with a facilitator, Barbara Grant to help guide two task forces this year. The first is focused on the identification of students for highly capable services, with particular attention to reaching culturally diverse and underserved populations of gifted students. This group begins its work on October 10th, and expects to have recommendations by November 29th. The second task force will focus on service delivery models (APP, Spectrum, ALO, and other options) and will begin meeting in December in order to make recommendations by mid-February. Task force members are a diverse group invited from the community and SPS staff. So who are these Task Force members? Anyone know? Any of our readers among those chosen to participate in these secret meetings?

A LOT of info in these links.  And a reminder - don't like gifted education, on principle or in specific?  Don't read this thread.   I offer this as information, not to start a fight.  There will be no comments on this as it is purely informational. Back to School Means Back to Segregated Gifted Programs for Some: New Book with Solutions.  From PRWeb: Vanderbilt education professor Donna Y. Ford has made it her mission to end segregation in gifted programs—a mission she’s not backing down from without a fight. Her recently released book, "Recruiting and Retaining Culturally Different Students in Gifted Education" (published by Prufrock Press Inc. this summer), details Ford's participation in a 2013 court case in which one Illinois school district was accused of discrimination against Hispanic students in its gifted program (the full report of the court case was released to the public in July 2013) and provides solutions for schools looking to ensure...

I mean, seriously, why does this district bother?  To explain, it was noted by several readers that the testing schedule for Advanced Learning programs is NOT in the school calendar.  And, by law, they have to supply public notice (at least for APP).  You'd think the calendar , going to every single family in the district, would be the ideal place.  You'd think the first-day packets , going to every single family in the district, would be the ideal place. You'd apparently be wrong. So I wrote to the Board and the Superintendent: Special Service Program Highly Capable Students WAC 392-170-042 Annual notification. Annual public notification of parents and students shall be made before any major identification activity. The notice shall be published or announced in multiple ways in appropriate languages to each community in school and district publications or other media, with circulation adequate to notify parents and students throughout the distric...

From SPS Communications: Seattle Public Schools would like to thank those organizations and businesses that sponsored the District’s 2013-14 wall calendar and family guide, which will be mailed soon to Seattle Public Schools students, families and staff. Sponsors include : Boy Scouts of America, Comcast, Defensive Driving School, Delta Dental, Foster Pepper, PCC Natural Markets, The Northwest Network, Safeway, Seattle City Light, The Seattle Public Library, Sound Mental Health, and Stevens Pass.  “We appreciate the support of our sponsors who ensure we can continue providing the calendar to our families,” said SPS Chief Communications Officer Lesley Rogers. “Without these businesses and organizations, the district would eventually have to stop producing this important publication, which provides families and staff with important news and information throughout the year.” The calendar, which features photos of students and staff, is scheduled to be mailed...

At the regular Board Legislative Meeting on Wednesday, May 1 there was a discussion of the proposed policy 2190, Highly Capable Services . You can watch the video here . Jump to 87:55 of part two for the start of the conversation. First you will hear Shauna Heath speak carefully so that she does not equate Highly Capable Services with APP. At first, I attributed this to Ms Heath's distinctive prose style - obfuscation - and her instinctive reluctance to answer a question. Seen through that lens, her confusing response is only amusing. However, what if Ms Heath's talk was intentional? What if she was intentionally making a distinction between highly capable services and APP? What if this is the first step to the introduction of another delivery model for Highly Capable Services? Am I paranoid? Sure, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

My thinking about the proposed Highly Capable policy 2190 has evolved. At first I just wanted the Board to fix the obvious flaws in the policy. Clarify the "school-age" language and the language about "individual learning rates and styles", remove the superfluous second paragraph that isn't specific to highly capable students, and change the third paragraph so it requires the superintendent to submit a grant application rather than requiring the Board to approve it. Once fixed, the policy won't do any good, but at least it won't do any harm. Then I thought that this policy, even when fixed, will, in fact, do harm. It will create the illusion that the topic has been addressed and stall the action that really needs to be taken. I believed that the Board should reject the proposed policy until the proper process has been followed. The Board needs to first articulate a Vision for all of Advanced Learning before drafting any policy to implement it. Then the ...

Do you hear that Superintendent Banda and members of the School Board?  Enough well-meaning talk.  I myself have been through this now, with two children, and I truly despair (and that's the right word) that this district will ever get it right.  What's most distressing is that there has been a lot of talk and hand-wringing and paper shuffling and yet, the program is confusing, uneven and frankly, something of a joke. First, the director of the program, Bob Vaughan, has got to go.   I rarely advocate for anyone to go but honestly, this has gotten to the point of being ridiculous.    He is not sustaining this program in any real way and consistently passes the buck or obfuscates over the stagnation of the program.   The program has made some progress but overall, does not well-serve the majority of students in it. Let's start with the Curriculum & Instruction meeting yesterday where, ostensibly, they were discussing Policy 2190 which outli...

This thread is for any and all thoughts, concerns, gripes about Advanced Learning.  I'm doing this in hopes that people at both ends of the "spectrum" will QUIT highjacking other threads with their opinions/gripes about Advanced Learning.  And FYI, Advanced Learning is NOT the major issue in our capacity management problems.  You are welcome to ask anyone at district headquarters working on capacity management that question.  (I will also ask that unless you have definite proof - an e-mail from Bob Vaughan or  other district official saying that most of the kids in APP got there through private testing, then ONLY state that as your opinion.  That claim is often made here and yet, where's the proof?  If you don't have it, then don't say it. ) I am not personally interested in the discussion over whether some people don't like that some kids are in separate classrooms/schools.   It's not that I don't believe you are entitled to y...

When you get asked (or you apply) to be on one of these committees, it's always important to remember that it's not about you.   Being on a committee means trying to be part of a team and find like-minded options and solutions to bear on the problem you are trying to solve (or at least help).   Many times it means biting your tongue and yes, even sometimes, going along to get along. It has been my experience that a key to success for any committee is the leadership.  I believe that even with district committees, it is a good idea to have community/parents as chairs or co-chairs who are elected by the committee.  I've seen the two women who lead FACMAC, Caroline Webster and Elizabeth Wong, who seem to be wise, calm and most of all, people who listen.  (Unbelievably they both serve on the ALT as well.  Their next meeting is June 19, 10:00am - 1:00pm, Room 2776, JSCEE.)  I think their group is well-served by having co-chairs. In advance I sa...

One of the ten policies that the Curriculum and Instruction Policy Committee is scheduled to review and revise at their June 25 meeting is the Advanced Learning Policy, now called Highly Capable Student Programs policy, D12.00. I don't really believe that the C & I Committee will actually put ten policy revisions on their agenda, so it is likely that this policy will not, in fact, be discussed that day. Here is the current policy: D12.00  The policy was suspended on January 29, 2009. Also on that day the Board voted to direct the superintendent to review the policy and recommend revisions. Despite this direction - made by a vote of the Board - the superintendent never took any action. That alone, by the way, was sufficient grounds for dismissal with cause. The Board never reminded the superintendent that they directed her to take this action; it was one more case of the Board's timidity. Nevertheless, the Board is finally getting around to revising this policy, just t...

The District's program placement practice used to be something of a mystery. A committee, the Program Placement Committee, used to meet, discuss the program placement proposals, and make recommendations to the superintendent. Then the superintendent would decide which proposals to accept, which to reject, and which to amend. We didn't know who was on the committee, when they met, or what they discussed. I once requested committee meeting minutes as a public document and they stopped keeping minutes after that. In short, the entire process was secretive, corrupt, and political. In 2007 the district wanted to split middle school APP. The decision, however, was a clear violation of the Highly Capable Student Program policy D12.00. The policy prohibits the creation of additional sites. The Board gave the policy an interpretation that was VERY sympathetic to the district administration and determined that the split could go forward after Board review. The Board delegated the Stude...